March 1, 2012 Page 1 AGENDA TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ...

March 1, 2012 Page 33
South: Residential Uses
East: Ruggles Avenue
West: Residential Uses
CIRCULATED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES COMMENTS RECEIVED
Arborist:
No response.
Building Department/Zoning Section:
By-Law Enforcement:
Development Engineering:
Finance:
The requested variances are correct.
No response.
No concerns or objections.
Not circulated.
Parks:
As per your request we have reviewed the drawings and have the following comments:
1. The owner should note that they must comply with the Tree Preservation By-law No. 41-07 as it
applies.
2. The owner should note that they must comply with the Street Tree Bylaw No. 40-07, as it relates to
Town trees fronting the property
3. Any new lots will be subject to parkland dedication at the time of building permit.
Planning:
The owner of the subject lands is seeking to vary the provision for maximum height under By-law
66-71, as amended by By-law 212-92, from 8.5 m (27.89 ft) to 9.3 m (30.51 feet) to facilitate the
construction of a two-storey, single family dwelling.
The subject lands are zoned “Residential Second Density (R2) Zone” under By-law 212-92; an
amendment to the parent by-law for the area, By-law 66-71, as amended. By-law 212-92 was passed
with the intent of restricting monster homes in the neighbourhood affected by the by-law. The
neighbourhood consists of primarily one-storey single detached dwellings; however redevelopment
has occurred with larger one and two-storey single family dwellings being built. This variance is
necessary given the grade difference between the subject lands and Ruggles Avenue and the way the
By-law contemplates dwelling height. In this regard, the by-law notes that the height of a dwelling be
taken from the centre line of the road. That being said, the property line of the subject lands sits 0.8
m (2.62 ft) higher than the centre line of Ruggles Avenue, resulting in the dwelling being 0.8 m
higher than the by-law allows, despite the actual height of the dwelling being in compliance.
Planning staff has reviewed the owner’s proposal and would recommend that the Minor Variance
application be approved since the requests are considered to be in keeping with the intent of both
the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the area, the requests are considered to be minor in nature
and are considered to be appropriate for the development of area in which the subject lands are
located.
H.R.H.:
PowerStream Inc.:
Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.:
Bell Canada:
York Region Transportation & Works Department:
(Design & Construction Branch)
Not circulated.
No objections.
Not circulated.
No response.
No response.